Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/59/2012

K.Sreelatha, W/o. K.Sarvesa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. R.Dilip Kumar, S/o. R.Sreenivasulu Naidu - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

24 Apr 2015

ORDER

Date of first filing:18.08.2012

Date of first disposal: 21.01.2013

Matter remanded and case restored on :05.01.2015

Date of disposal:24.04.2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.59/2012

 

Between

 

K. Sreelatha,

W/o. K. Sarvesa,

Hindu, aged about 34 years,

Flat No.101, Satyam Medos Apartment,

Prasanth Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

And

 

Dr. R. Dilip Kumar,

S/o. R. Sreenivasulu Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 47 years,

D.No.13/14, Park Street,

Pakala Village,  Post & Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              …  Opposite party.

 

 

            This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 16.04.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the opposite party, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12(1) of the C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against opposite party for the following reliefs, a) to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- towards the minimum internal works got completed by the complainant by a private worker, b) to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,95,000/- towards rents paid by the complainant from 14.03.2009 to 31.08.2011 (29 months 15 days @ Rs.10,000/- per month), c) to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,250/- for the delay in handing over the flat, d) to direct the opposite party to comply with the terms and conditions of registered sale deed dt:08.12.2008 executed by the opposite party, e) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards penalty for not providing amenities, f) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and g) for costs of the litigation.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-  that the opposite party sold semi finished A-schedule property in favour of the complainant on 08.12.2008 as per sale agreement dt:14.08.2008 entered into by the opposite party and complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the sale deed under document No.6291 of 2008 and the document No.5647 of 2006, in which works to be completed by the opposite party are mentioned. The opposite party shall complete the works and hand-over the full fledged constructed schedule property to the complainant within 30 months from 14.09.2006 i.e. on or before 14.03.2009, failing in completion of works, the opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2.50 paise per sq.ft. per month, till the opposite party handover the property with all amenities as agreed in the agreement and sale deed. On 08.12.2008 both the complainant and the opposite party have entered into a consent deed to the effect that the opposite party entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/- apart from sale consideration already paid on completion and handing over the A-schedule property in its full fledged shape to the complainant.

            3.  Accordingly the complainant gave a un-dated cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- bearing No.010501 drawn on S.V.Oriental College branch, Tirupati, on condition that it is to be presented only on the date of handing over the A-schedule property in its full fledged shape to the complainant on or before 14.03.2009 (within 30 months as agreed). But the opposite party failed to complete the work and deliver possession of the premises / A-schedule property. Therefore, the complainant got issued notice on 20.07.2011 requesting the opposite party not to present the cheque for encashment, bank authorities, who received the cheque, blocked the cheque. The opposite party un-claimed the notice dt:20.07.2011. The complainant received a notice dt:19.08.2011 from the opposite party for dis-honour of the cheque. In this connection, cheque bounce case is pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pakala. Yet the opposite party did not complete the works, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale and registered sale deed in spite of repeated demands. Hence the complaint.

            4.  The opposite party filed his written version admitting the agreement of sale dt:14.08.2008 in respect of flat No.101  of A-schedule property and the cost of the flat is Rs.28,00,000/-, that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- on even date and undertaken to pay the balance amount by 10.10.2008 and the opposite party has to deliver the possession of the flat No.101 after receiving the sale consideration. In case the opposite party fails to complete the construction, complainant is at liberty to enforce the agreement (as per the recital of agreement) for specific performance of contract. Therefore, the case cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum. That the agreement was subsequently cancelled and separate registered sale deed was executed for Rs.15,50,000/- on 08.12.2008, as per which the complainant has to bear the registration charges. As per the recital of sale deed, the complainant paid Rs.8,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.352872 dt:26.11.2008 drawn on ICICI bank and Rs.7,50,000/- by cash. As per clause.4 of sale deed, possession of the flat was delivered to complainant on 08.12.2008. The flat is semi finished flat with RCC building slab with columns and partly brick work completed. The remaining work not yet completed  The flat having doors, door frames, windows, ventilators, common rights, water supply arrangement of pipes, right in common area i.e. passages, staircases, septic tank, bore well, over head water tank, water supply, lift and common passage of this flat in ground floor together with parking area and all amenities and electrical motor in this 1/30^th undivided share along with another co-owners and the vendee is at liberty to enjoy the same. That the opposite party did not undertake that the A-schedule property shall be completed within 30 months from 14.09.2006, in case of failure, opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2.50 per sq.ft. per month, until it is handed over. The agreement dt:14.09.2006 is between the owner of the building M/s. Charan Home Pvt. Ltd. and the Developer. The complainant is nothing to do with the said agreement. The complainant has been inducted in the possession of flat No.101 long back on 08.12.2008. The notice dt:20.07.2011 issued by the complainant was served on the opposite party. This complaint is filed as a counter blast to the cheque bounce case pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Pakala. That the opposite party is not liable to pay Rs.1,76,100/- or Rs.29,500/-  or Rs.1,03,250/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant yet to pay part of the sale consideration. Complaint is therefore not maintainable and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            5.  In support of the case of the complainant chief affidavit of P.W.1 to 7 were filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. For the opposite party, chief evidence of opposite party was filed and got marked Exs.B1 to B15. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments. Heard the arguments of both parties. 

            6.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in completing the works under A-schedule property in flat No.101?

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii).  To what relief?

            7.  Both parties have filed their written arguments and upon hearing the arguments of both parties, the case was earlier disposed-off on 21.01.2013 allowing the complaint in part and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,250/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Against the said order, the opposite party preferred an appeal and the same was allowed on 28.11.2014 and the matter is remanded to this Forum to dispose-off the matter in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the records. After the matter is remanded, both the parties have given an opportunity.

            After the case is remanded, both the parties have filed additional chief affidavits, additional written arguments. Complainant filed additional written arguments on 09.03.2015, whereas the opposite party filed additional evidence affidavit on 05.01.2015 and another evidence affidavit on 24.02.2015. Opposite party also filed additional written arguments twice one on 09.03.2015 and another on 06.04.2015. Later the counsel for both parties have advanced oral arguments.   

            8.  Point No.(i):-  before answering this point, some of the admitted facts are to be extracted hereunder. The agreement of sale dt:14.08.2008 is in between opposite party and complainant and it was executed by the opposite party in favour of complainant for Rs.28,00,000/- in respect of flat No.101, block-A in Satyam Meadows Apartment. Similarly Ex.A2 is the registered sale deed in between the opposite party and complainant dt:08.12.2008 executed by the opposite party Dilip Kumar in favour of the complainant Srilatha. The registered sale deed had some terms and conditions. Sale deed is for Rs.15,50,000/-. It is specifically contended that the purchaser has offered to purchase undivided share of 1/30^th in the land in A-schedule, flat No.101, first floor admeasuring 1400 sq.ft. including common area for a sale consideration of Rs.15,50,000/-. Admittedly the flat is a semi finished flat. In pursuance of the sale deed under Ex.A2, the consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- is paid by the complainant by way of cheque bearing No.352872 dt:26.11.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai Branch and remaining balance of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid by way of cash, total Rs.15,50,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party otherwise it can be said that it is the opposite party Dilip Kumar, vendor, land owner, who received the sale consideration of Rs.15,50,000/- from the complainant Srilatha. Ex.A3 is the Agreement of Sale dt:14.08.2008 executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant as already stated supra. Clause.7 of Ex.A3 shows that the purchaser / complainant has paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on 14.08.2008 i.e. on the date of agreement of sale under Ex.A3 itself and balance amount shall be paid on or before 10.10.2008 in the following manner i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- by 20.08.2008, Rs.13,00,000/- by 07.09.2008, Rs.3,00,000/- by 10.10.2008. The complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.08.2008, Rs.4,50,000/- on 23.08.2008 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 29.10.2008. Thus the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. Altogether a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- has been already paid to the opposite party as stated in the agreement of sale under Ex.A3 a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and remaining amount under Ex.A2, the registered sale deed for Rs.15,50,000/- i.e. already paid a total sum of Rs.28,50,000/-. It is the opposite party, who received the entire sale consideration from the complainant. On the date of agreement of sale under Ex.A3 dt:14.08.2008, the flat in question is a semi finished one. As per Ex.A2 registered sale deed dt:08.12.2008 also the flat is semi finished one. As per the contents of the complaint, the work is to be completed within 30 months from 14.09.2006 i.e. the opposite party has to complete the construction work in flat No.101 that was sold to the complainant on or before 14.03.2009 and provide all amenities, but the specific allegation that was made by the complainant is that opposite party / vendor has not completed the remaining construction work of the semi finished flat No.101 within the stipulated time and also he has not provided amenities as agreed on the date of registration of sale deed in favour of the complainant under Ex.A2, possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant on 08.12.2008 but without finishing the remaining construction work. As on the date of Ex.A2, the work done is the RCC building slab with columns and partly brick work completed. The remaining work not yet completed. Ex.A13 is the consent letter dt:13.08.2012, which was executed by the complainant in favour of the opposite party. In para.3 of Ex.A13, it is specifically mentioned that soon after fully completed flat No.101 handed-over to the complainant, which was situated in first floor of Satyam Meadows Apartment in Prasanthi Nagar, the complainant has to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party, for this purpose the complainant has issued a cheque bearing No.010501, which is a undated cheque. The cheque was given to opposite party on condition that it can be encashed only after finishing the remaining work and handover the flat to the complainant. So far as Ex.A2 is concerned, the flat was already handed-over to the complainant but the semi finished stage was stand still position, that is to say the remaining construction work was not completed. Ex.A13 clearly establish that the remaining work in flat No.101 was not completed even by 13.08.2012. Ex.A14 notice dt:21.04.2014 got issued by the opposite party and 3 others to the President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of Satyam meadows Apartment, in which Paras.3,5 and 6 shows that flat No.101 is still incomplete. The contents of para.6 of Ex.A14 shows that the above said 4 persons of Satyam Meadows Apartment come forward to execute the development works of a) 3 KV Power Supply, obtaining and providing of Telugu Ganga Water connections, U.D.S. system, shelves and lofts to all the flats of his clients viz. 1) R.Venkataprasad, 2) R.Dileepkuar, 3) Smt.T.V.Jyothi and 4) T.Nirupama. The above persons of Satyam Meadows Apartment have not at all initiated the works so far, which also discloses that till 2014 the works of flat No.101, which was given to complainant was not completed. Ex.A1 being the incomplete document and Ex.A12 photos shows semi constructed flats, there is no proof that photographs under Ex.A12 relates to flat No.101. Therefore both Exs.A1 and A12 need not be taken into account.

            9.  Whether the opposite party has completed the construction work in respect of flat No.101 in A-schedule, which was purchased by the complainant by paying Rs.28,50,000/-, admittedly as agreed by the opposite party. According to opposite party and as per the contents of Ex.B7 dt:19.08.2011 (copy of complaint in S.T.C.No.02/2012) the unfinished works were completed by the end of June 2011. The works so alleged to have been completed are plastering work, flooring work together with fixing of tiles (Marbels), plumbing and sanitary work and wood work like fixing of door and door frames as well as painting work and the complainant has occupied the flat on 03.07.2011. According to Ex.A2 dt:08.12.2008 possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant by the date of sale deed by 08.12.2008 itself. Ex.B5 shows that the possession was given to the complainant on 03.07.2011, which one is correct. As per the written version of the opposite party dt:16.11.2012, para.7 the complainant has paid Rs.15,50,000/- by way of cheque and cash as stated supra, para.5 of the written version of opposite party dt:16.11.2012 shows that under clause.21 of sale agreement, the developer agreed to complete and handover the constructed area to the land owners within 30 months from the date of 14.09.2006. If the developer failed to complete the construction within 30 months, the developer is liable to pay Rs.2.50/- per sq.ft. until he handed-over the flat. In para.7 of the said written version, it is mentioned that the description of flat No.101 as semi finished flat with RCC building slab with columns and partly brick work completed. The remaining work not yet completed. The opposite party has admitted in para.10 of his written version that on 08.12.2008 a consent agreement was entered into according to which the opposite party is to receive an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- apart from the amount already received towards sale consideration, upon the completion of A-schedule property in its full fledged shape, for which the complainant gave a cheque bearing No.010501. So even according to his admissions, he is entitled for the said Rs.2,00,000/- only after completion of the remaining construction work. Though the written version is filed on 16.11.2012, nowhere it is mentioned that the opposite party has completed the remaining construction work. The opposite party further contended that as the complainant failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, she will not be a consumer i.e. his specific version is unless the total amount including Rs.2,00,000/- is paid, the complainant will not become a consumer, for this purpose, the definition of consumer should be referred to under Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986:         

“consumer” means any person who – (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose   (ii)  [hires or avails of] an services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

 

            So, it is very clear that a person, who purchase any goods or avails of service for a consideration, which has paid in full or in part or promised to pay in full or in part or paid under any system of deferred payment is a consumer. Therefore, the contention of opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted. That too, the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is over and above the total sale consideration to be received by the opposite party only on completion of the remaining construction work and made the flat in full fledged shape.

            10.  The provisions of C.P.Act 1986 enables the consumer to claim and empowers the Commission / Forum to redress any injustice done to the consumer. The Commission or the Forum entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. In the chief affidavit of opposite party dt:05.01.2015 at page.2 contended that the complainant claimed certain amounts for getting completion of the work in flat No.101. On her own accord without reference to the opposite party. It requires elaborate evidence for the alleged loss suffered by the complainant. It cannot be decided on summary procedure under C.P.Act. In this regard, the point involved is very small. Whether the opposite party has completed the construction as agreed in the agreement of sale and registered sale deed. Nowhere in the affidavit, the opposite party stated that he has completed the construction by himself or got the construction completed through somebody else on his or under his supervision so far as in flat No.101, which was sold to the complainant.

            11.  The additional chief affidavit of opposite party dt:24.02.2015 in para.3 it is mentioned that a tripartite agreement which came in to force on 11.06.2010 the Apartment Association undertook to get pending works completed in the said apartment complex including the apartments allotted to the land owners in A-Block, B-Bloc and C-Block for which purpose the land owner undertook to pay Rs.9,30,000/- towards completion of work and they paid accordingly. It was mentioned that the said amount of Rs.9,30,000/- was paid. Some of the flats in the said apartment blocks were completed including flat No.101 in which the pending remaining works, not finished by the builder were completed by us and the complainant has occupied flat No.101 on 03.07.2011 and living in the same flat from that day onwards. It was not mentioned for the reasons best known to the opposite party that the remaining uncompleted works were completed, by whom, those works were completed i.e. to say whether by the opposite party / vendor himself or through the builder or through the building association or by the developer. His version is against the recitals of Ex.A2 Sale Deed. The written arguments filed on behalf of opposite party on 02.01.2013, 3^rd page last lines discloses that the construction of semi-finished flat No.101 was completed by the 3^rd party contractor and delivered to the complainant. The name of the 3^rd party contractor was not mentioned, when he was engaged by the opposite party for the purpose of completing the incomplete works in flat No.101 and actually when the remaining works were completed exactly. The other document shows that the 3^rd party contractor is one Jayaprakash. According to Apartment Association Resolution Ex.A15 minutes dt:11.03.2012, the said Jayaprakash did not complete the project works entrusted to him. The pleadings on behalf of the opposite party shows that Kishor kumar Reddy has finished the remaining works. The said Kishor kumar Reddy filed his affidavit as P.W.3 stating that on 01.07.2011 the complainant Srilatha and her husband K.Sarvesa approached him for completion of civil works that were pending in their flat. Accordingly himself and K.Srilatha (complainant) entered into a work agreement on 01.07.2011 for the completion of six works to a tune of Ra.1,76,100/- which was agreed. Accordingly he has completed the said works within two months i.e. by 31.08.2011. By the time he started the work, the flat is not in a position to occupy for residence, as it is unfinished and after completion of the said work, the complainant occupied the house in the month of September. Apart from the affidavit of P.W.3, the affidavits of P.W.2,4 to 7 have clinchingly supported the case of complainant. Thus, no more documents are required to prove that the opposite party failed to complete the construction work till 2011. Consequently, the complainant got the work entrusted to P.W.3 and finished the work by paying Rs.1,76,100/-. Therefore, under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opposite party has failed to complete the balance of construction work till the complainant herself got the construction work completed by engaging P.W.3 and violated the terms and conditions of agreement of sale, as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly this point is answered.

            12.  Point No.(ii):-  Since the opposite party having accepted the sale consideration amount of Rs.28,50,000/-, even a sum of Rs.50,000/- in excess to the total cost mentioned in the agreement of sale under Ex.A3, made the complainant to suffer mentally and also forced her to stay in the rented house till the complainant herself got the remaining works completed and shifted her residence to flat No.101 in the month of September 2011. Though the possession of flat No.101 was handed-over to the complainant on the date of Ex.A2 registered sale deed, admittedly, it is a semi finished flat and agreed to complete the remaining construction works within 30 days from the date of the agreement of sale i.e. on or before 14.03.2009. Non-completion of the construction work in the house already sold to the complainant for the entire sale consideration of Rs.28,50,000/- which was received by the opposite party admittedly and possession of the flat was also delivered, certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as he failed to complete the remaining construction works within the stipulated period. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,76,100/-, which was paid to P.W.3 for completing remaining works in her house bearing flat No.101 in A-schedule of Satyam Meadows Apartment for causing mental agony by the opposite party due to non-completion of the remaining works, the complainant is also entitled to compensation and costs of the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered.

            13.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, the complainant is entitled for the actual cost of the construction done by P.W.3 i.e. a sum of Rs.1,76,100/- paid to P.W.3 and got the unfinished works done, which were purported to be done by the opposite party, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Ex.A2 i.e. registered sale deed dt:08.12.2008. That the opposite party is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony by non-completion of the remaining construction works in the flat that was sold to the complainant and also liable to pay cost of the complaint and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,76,100/- (Rupees one lakh seventy six thousand and one hundred only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of registered sale deed dt:08.12.2008, till realization towards actual cost of the construction works paid to P.W.3 for getting the works completed, the opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant for causing mental agony by not finishing the remaining construction works within the stipulated time or at any time subsequent thereto and the opposite party is also further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party is directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 24^th day of April, 2015.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: K.Srilatha (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-2: K.Sarvesa (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-3: C.Kishore Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-4: A.Venkatarami Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-5: J.Purushotham (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-6:D.Nagaraj (Evidence Affidavit filed).

PW-7:D.Nagaraj (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1: Dr.R.Dilip Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	14.09.2006	Regd. Joint Development agreement with GPA No.5647/2006 between the Opposite Party & others and M/s. Charan Homes Pvt., Ltd.,
2	08.12.2008	Regd. Sale Deed No.6291/2008 for the A schedule property by the Opposite Party in favour of the complainant.
3	14.08.2008	Sale agreement between the complainant and Opposite Party.
4	20.07.2011	Office Copy of  the legal notice caused to the Opposite Party and the Andhra Bank, SVOC Branch, Tirupati.
5	25.07.2011	Acknowledgement card from Andhra Bank, SVOC Branch, Tirupati.
6	27.07.2011	Returned RPAD of document No.4 as unclaimed.
7	19.08.2011	Received copy of the legal notice caused by the Opposite Party.
8	06.09.2011	Office Copy of the reply caused to the legal notice dt:19.08.2011.
9		Acknowledgement card to the reply dt:06.09.2011.
10	31.08.2011	Works agreement and receipt between the complainant and Engineer.
11	29.11.2011	Acknowledgement card of the Adhaar Receipt of the complainant.
12		Photos with CD and bill.
13	08.12.2008	Agreement between the complaint and the Opposite party for execution of remaining work for Rs.2,00,000/-.
14	21.04.2014	Copy of the legal notice Dt: 21.04.2014 called by R.Venkata Prasad and others.
15	11.03.2012	Attested true copy of the extract of the minutes of the general body meeting.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1	08.12.2008	Regd. Sale Agreement.
2	08.12.2008	Photo copy of consent agreement by the complainant to the opposite party for handing over the cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- authorizing him to present and encash the same after handing over the flat No.101 to the complainant.
3	30.07.2011	Photo copy of the cheque bearing No.01050 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued by the complainant in favour of the opposite party.
4	11.08.2011	Photo copy of memo issued by the Andhra Bank for returned cheque unpaid with reasons Insufficient funds.
5	19.08.2011	Photo copy of Legal notice to the complainant issued by G.Guruswamy Naidu Advocate on behalf of the opposite party under Sec.138 NI Act.
6		Photo copy of plaint in OS. No.136 filed Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

 

 

7		Photo copy of complaint filed by Dr.Dilip Kumar before the Judicial First class magistrate , Pakala  under section STC 2of 2012.
8		Photo copy of Chief Affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant in STC 2 of 2012.
9		Photo copy Chief Affidavit of K.Sri Latha accused in STC 02 of 2012.
10		Photo copy Chief Affidavit filed R.Dilip Kumar petition in STC 2/2012 before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pakala.
11	11.06.2010	Photo copy of TRIPARTY Agreement between B/s .
12	28.04.2011	Photo copy of Rupees for 7,50,000/- along with request issuing by Satyam Meadows Apartments.
13	09.02.2013	Photo copy of cash receipt issued by Satyam Meadows Apartments.
14	29.03.2013	Photo copy of cash receipt for Rs.50,000/- issued by the Satyam Meadows Apartments.
15	02.05.2013	Photo copy of cash receipt for Rs.30,000/- issued by Satyam Meadows Apartments.

 

                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                

  President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

               Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite party.